Respect for the Dignity of Individuals

"A society that does not recognise that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom."

- F A Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty

Reflection.

Influence

One of the many reasons why I think Monterey is more interesting than Davos:

I mentioned one of the TEDtalks by Hans Rosling sometime back.

Anyway, not too long ago, in a discussion with a senior member of a reputable international institution, I was told that although intelligence, diligence and productivity are very important, they are not the most valuable attributes of a member of an organisation or an employee of a company.

The most valuable attribute, it is said, is the ability of a member or employee to inspire people around her to a common cause, objective or direction – to shape opinions, drive ideas and stir passion. This is especially true for those in leadership positions.

It is not difficult to see how this is also relevant beyond organisations and companies, extending to the society in whole. The questions are however; do we have enough people with such attribute in Malaysia? And how many of them have the capacity and ability to affect positive change for the future of the country?

Elanor

Dani Blogs!

Dani Rodrik started blogging :)

This is my previous entry on his work.

Vote - Defeating the Defeatist Tendency

My ‘Why Malaysia Needs More Governance and Less Corruption?’ and the subsequent ‘Vote for Change?’ posts attracted many comments (for Arrested Development’s standard that is…) which are interesting, persuasive and worthy of lengthier discussions.

Unfortunately, I can only respond to some of them briefly here.

Evolution Analogy:

Cantab used evolution as a parallel to election and the danger of transitioning into a bad equilibrium through voting just for the sake of political competition. He ended by saying:

Bottom line: if we want change, WE have got to make it. Not cross ballot papers while hoping real hard someone else does the dirty work.

I fully agree that if we want change, we have got to make it work ourselves. But voting IS part of the set of actions that we could be pursuing in catalysing a change.

At this point, I think it is important for me to explain myself. I am not advocating voting for the opposition just for the sake of creating political competition as a long term strategy for a democracy. It is plea borne out of what I think is a crisis of norms and institutions in the current state of our nation which is partly due to the political monopoly of the current ruling coalition. Ideally, we should be voting for people, policies and principles (visit Haris Ibrahim’s blog: The People’s Parliament for an inspiring and earnest effort), and this would be my longer term strategy too. Unfortunately, given the current state of affairs, I do not think that this is a luxury all of us have for the coming general election. With the current political hegemony, voting for the oppositions will almost certainly not replace the incumbent coalition, but it will be sending a signal that the people do not condone corruption, inefficiency and the squandering of our future and wealth.

When I said democracy is a process, I meant it in a more holistic sense and not just the election-selection process. The road to democracy requires the co-evolution of informal norms and formal institutions that would ultimately allow for a governance of a state that is of, by and for the people. One of the most crucial elements for this is to have a society that has a strong desire for leaders to be made accountable to the public.

Having read economics in the undersized rooms of the under-funded portion of the Sidgwick site, I am more inclined to view the situation to be more of a parallel to competition between firms rather than an evolutionary process.

Firms derive their power from the support of the consumers while political parties derive their power from the support of the people. At the risk of oversimplification, monopolies, having complete market dominance, have very little incentive to improve, be efficient and tend to exploit the consumers by charging higher price for their product. On the other hand, competition tends to result in pressure to improve and ultimately better serve the interest of the consumers. For local examples, imagine a poorly-run state-backed monopoly (Proton, perhaps), and an industry with intense competition. A good example for the latter is the pre-paid mobile-phone industry in Malaysia. Notwithstanding the wastage from over-advertising, it is very difficult not to see how competition has resulted in improved services for consumers (try imagining 1 cent per sms 3 years ago…).

Marginal Vote:

A single vote is like a broken pencil – it is pointless. As cliché as it might sound, this is not true – every vote counts. Especially when you look at it from the collective perspective. The fear is, however, this pointless reason is used as justification for apathy and inaction on a collective level, hence resulting in the worst case scenario coming true.

I initially intended to use the non-cooperative outcome story of a prisoner’s dilemma to illustrate this, but decided against it now since it has alluded to in my previous post on rude driving, and it can get a bit geeky.

Instead, I refer to an example given in Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point on what is called the ‘bystander problem’:

“One of the most infamous incidents in New York City history, for example, was the 1964 stabbing death of a young Queens woman by the name of Kitty Genovese. Genovese was chased by her assailant and attacked three times on the street, over the course of half an hour, as thirty-eight of her neighbors watched from their windows. During that time, however, none of the thirty-eight witnesses called the police. The case…became symbolic of the cold and dehumanizing effects of urban life… Nobody can say why the thirty-eight did not lift the phone while… [but] it can be assumed… that their apathy was indeed one of the big-city variety…

The truth about Genovese, however, turns out to be a little more complicated — and more interesting. Two New York City psychologists — Bibb Latane… and John Darley… — subsequently conducted a series of studies to try to understand what they dubbed the "bystander problem." They staged emergencies of one kind or another in different situations in order to see who would come and help. What they found, surprisingly, was that the one factor above all else that predicted helping behavior was how many witnesses there were to the event.

In one experiment, for example, Latane and Darley had a student alone in a room stage an epileptic fit. When there was just one person next door, listening, that person rushed to the student's aid 85 percent of the time. But when subjects thought that there were four others also overhearing the seizure, they came to the student's aid only 31 percent of the time… When people are in a group, in other words, responsibility for acting is diffused. They assume that someone else will make the call, or they assume that because no one else is acting, the apparent problem — the seizure-like sounds from the other room… — isn't really a problem. In the case of Kitty Genovese, then, social psychologists like Latane and Darley argue, the lesson is not that no one called despite the fact that thirty-eight people heard her scream; it's that no one called because thirty-eight people heard her scream…”

Similarly, that our single vote does not matter in the bigger scheme of things might be true on an individual level, but on a collective level, it could be disastrous. If everyone who wants change thinks that his/her vote is powerless to affect change, than the status quo will remain.

As for Elegant Lily’s comment, he articulated a very real and relevant concern on communal politics being key in determining election outcome. It is a sad truth that division by ethnicity exists across almost all aspects of the Malaysian society, with politics being chiefly so. That said, I do believe a growing number of Malaysians are increasingly realising the importance and urgency of looking beyond racial identity for the future of our nation.

Similar to the argument on marginal vote, it is very important for this group to realise that they are not powerless to affect change. I sincerely believe that we should not allow the dominance of the status quo to feed our defeatist tendency.

Quoting Cantab out of context, “if we want change, WE have got to make it.”

Elanor

Rude Driving

Woke up early today. Felt fresh and energetic, with much optimism and eagerness to brace the challenges that this new week brings. Like an enthusiastic bunny, I got ready to work.

Then came the driving.

As usual the town traffic was real bad, no surprise there. But today, I must have woken up with an ‘I am a pushover’ label on my forehead. At least 20 cars cut into my lane rudely, mostly without having the courtesy to signal. Dozens used emergency lanes to avoid queuing and then jammed their stupid cars into the normal lanes, causing massive traffic standstill for those who were polite enough to drive normally. And when two or more lanes merge into one, again you will get standstill because nobody would make way, and drive like they were playing side-way chicken – as though being a car length behind on the road would result in catastrophic consequences.

And then an ambulance passed by. Not only were cars reluctant to make way, some actually trailed behind the ambulance, exploiting the temporary split traffic.

What the freaking shit is wrong with us, Malaysian drivers?

Predictably, I reach work annoyed, grumpy and full of bad vibes… *mumble grumble*

Rationalising Rude Driving

While not everyday is as bad, the situation I just described is normal by most standards. If you want to witness the worst of Malaysia, you have an option watching a parliamentary debate or driving during peak hours. Rudeness and arrogance trump civic-mindedness and common courtesy. The irony of this is that if everyone drives politely, I am almost certain that the traffic jam would be much better (personally, traffic congestion is a function of volume of traffic and the cooperative behaviour of drivers).

In a society, acts that are rude and exploit the goodness of others are normally frowned upon and usually punished, either formally or not. Such is the basis that ensures that the welfare of everyone is protected and for the society to grow. Some of these are informal norms while others are formally enforced. For examples, someone who cuts queue in a post-office is subjected to the informal disapproval of everyone else while someone who steals will be punished by law.

While the examples given above are exceptions rather than norms, the problem of rude driving in Malaysia is the reverse. Why is this so?

I can think of two reasons:

1. Repetition

In a small society, cooperative behaviours are enforced and exploitative behaviours are punished, partly, through repetitive interactions. People cooperate now in expectation that others will cooperate in the future. Similarly, a short term gain by exploiting others have to be weighed against future retribution for doing so. This is easily understood by thinking of your interaction in office (or college) or with your family. Cooperative behaviours are generally preferred while rude ones tend to be avoided if possible. You are less inclined to cut queue at the cafeteria if the people there are your office mates that you will be meeting every day.

On the road however, there is no repetition. Driving is mostly a one-off event. If you cut into the lane of another person rudely, you do not have to fear to be treated similarly by the same person in the future because the possibility of that happening is very slim. The individual gain from being rude and exploiting others in a one-off event provides the incentives for every driver to prefer bad behaviours from good ones, despite the possibility that the cooperative outcome could actually be better off for everyone. In the formal parlance, being rude is in fact the dominant strategy for this prisoner's dilemma-type of situation.

2. Shame

The second reason, which is intimately linked to the first, is shame. Norms of a society are normally evolved such that cooperative behaviours could be enforced without credible repetitive interactions. Bad manners are frowned upon and usually the mechanism for enforcement against them is shame. If you cut queue in a post-office, you have to face, personally, the loathing disapproval of everyone else, even though they are strangers. This is normally sufficient disincentive for most people to not cut queue.

Unfortunately for driving, not only is everyone practically wearing a mask in the form of a Proton Waja or a Honda City, the interactions are also normally very brief for the shame effect to kick in.

So what can we do?

Formal enforcement of driving politely is an exercise in futility. The cost and complexity of enforcement will most probably be huge and with a good possibility of causing more traffic disruptions rather than less.

Furthermore, civic-mindedness is not something that should be instilled through external means – it should come from within all of us. After half a century of nationhood, it will be great to see our society having the collective will and maturity to drive with courtesy.

Elanor

Stiglitz on China and Rogoff on Wolfowitz

There are two recent and interesting Project Syndicate articles by Joe Stiglitz and Ken Rogoff.

Joe:

China’s New Economic Model

China’s success since it began its transition to a market economy has been based on adaptable strategies and policies: as each set of problems are solved, new problems arise, for which new policies and strategies must be devised. This process includes social innovation. China recognized that it could not simply transfer economic institutions that had worked in other countries; at the least, what succeeded elsewhere had to be adapted to the unique problems confronting China.

…

As China moves away from export-led growth, it will have to look for new sources of dynamism in its growing entrepreneurial ranks, which requires a commitment to creating an independent innovation system. China has long invested heavily in higher education and technology; now it is striving to create world-class institutions.

…

Too many people think of economics as a zero-sum game, and that China’s success is coming at the expense of the rest of the world. Yes, China’s rapid growth poses challenges to the West. Competition will force some to work harder, to become more efficient, or to accept lower profits.

But economics is really a positive-sum game…

We should all hope that China’s new economic model succeeds. If it does, all of us will have much to gain.

Ken:

The World Bank at bay

Even if Paul Wolfowitz is eventually forced to resign, nothing will be gained if George Bush is allowed summarily to choose his replacement.

…Why does the world meekly go along with the status quo and let the US dictate the Bank's top position? It is a sorry tale of poor global governance. Europe does not get in America's way because it wants to maintain Europe's equally out-dated privilege of appointing the head of the International Monetary Fund, the Bank's sister institution.

Asia has little choice but to defer to the US and Europe's shenanigans because it is grossly under-represented in both organisations. As for Africa, its leaders are loath to do or say anything that might interrupt the flow of World Bank largesse.

Many people, including myself, have long complained about the leadership selection process at the World Bank and the IMF. How can the Bank and the IMF continue to go around lecturing developing economies on good governance and transparency but fail to allow change in their own houses?

And just for fun, Ken said this to Joe back in 2002:

“Joe, as an academic, you are a towering genius. Like your fellow Nobel Prize winner, John Nash, you have a "beautiful mind." As a policymaker, however, you were just a bit less impressive.

Other than that, I thought it was a pretty good book.

Sincerely yours,

Ken”

It is from his open letter to Jeo expressing his discontent for Globalization and Its Discontents.

Teehee,

Elanor

Vote for Change?

My post on Why Malaysia Needs More Governance and Less Corruption attracted two very interesting comments. Thank you Cantab and Elegent Lily.

A quick recap – I ended the said post by saying:

Vote for change. As Fukuyama said, the road to modernisation requires a society that desires democracy.

To that, Cantab responded:

Vote for a change? Democracy only works if there are viable alternatives. At the moment, the opposition are a motley crew of political personalities (not even parties, me thinks), clambering to oppose for opposing's sake.

What happens then? Do we put these people in power anyways, just for the sake of change? Or do we tolerate the status quo, until something better comes along?

We cannot win.

I will vote and I will vote for the opposition.

The reason for me to do so however, is not because I believe that the opposition can do a better job in running the country. For the current situation, I do not think that the issue is a matter of the ruling party versus the opposition; on choosing between the lesser of two evils. Many people I know use this line of reasoning to justify apathy, inaction and defeatism.

Democracy is a process. And democracy works when elected representatives are made accountable to the public. For this to happen, political competition is crucial for elected representatives to have the needed incentive to perform and be made responsible. Without competition, democracy is only a name – the system will be no different from a dictatorial regime. Without leaders accountable to serving the public, complacency, inefficiency and corruption will follow and leading us to government banditry and widespread waste* that will rob the nation of its wealth and the population of their future.

Much akin to monopolistic firms exploiting the welfare of consumers, a democracy requires political competition for the welfare of its people to be protected and the progress of its society to be secured.

As Elegant Lily commented:

Given the state of things, where is the country headed? …And how to foster strong institutions in the presence of little political competition?

We need political competition for the system to work. Make our elected representative be accountable to us Malaysians.

Vote for change.

* Highly recommended reading: Tim Harford’s Why Poor Countries Are Poor: The clues lie on a bumpy road leading to the world's worst library.